Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat will give eCos Copyrights to the FSF!

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the very-cool-gesture dept.

An anonymous reader notes "Businesswire reports in this article that RedHat will assign its copyrights for the eCos embedded OS to the FSF. This is great news, considering that they have stopped developing it in 2002. Hopefully this will mean new life for the project."

19 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. If development stopped in 2002... by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    how come it looks like they added CPU architectures and features in 2003?

    --
    Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
  2. tax writeoff by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Notice this is a healty tax writeoff at the beginning of the year. Hmmmm....

  3. Abandonware by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is this the first time a software developer has expressly relinquished copyright for abandonware? Of course, eCos was never proprietary, so it's not quite the same...

  4. Go Red Hat! by fader · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As much as everyone seems to hate Red Hat for being big and pushing for what they want, I have to say that I truly respect them. They've never been anything but fair, honest, and helpful to the OSS community. Sure, they sometimes make unpopular decisions, but they focus on their business and don't try to meddle in anyone else's. And they've certainly never pulled any stunt worthy of calling them the 'Microsoft of Linux' as gets thrown about from time to time. The worst they've ever done is ask that people redistributing their distro use a different name and artwork. I can't see how anyone could have a problem with that.

    And as this shows, they often go above and beyond the mere requirements of the GPL. They've released a good amount of software under the GPL when they really didn't have to. They pay a lot of developers' salaries, too.

    So I'd like to say thanks, Red Hat. I have nothing but good feelings toward you, and I hope you do better and better financially.

    (Full disclosure: I don't work for Red Hat, don't own any of their stock, etc. I knew one guy who worked for them, but he was a tech support grunt there for a few months and I wasn't even in contact with him then. These opinions are my own.)

    --
    - fader
  5. This is strange. by Krapangor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I always thought that code based on GPLed code falls under the GPL anyway and must be published.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    1. Re:This is strange. by xianzombie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, but even under GPL, doesn't it still kinda belong directly to the original creator, if only by name alone?

      Perhaps this is RH's way of reliqusihing all ties.

      I don't see how it serves much of a specific purpose though.

    2. Re:This is strange. by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That may be true, but the fact that the FSF now owns the copyrights means that the FSF can take over license enforcement. That's why they really did it.

  6. Mixed Feelings about news like this by dr_canak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a Redhat shareholder, not a lot of shares, and bought well after they bottomed out. I bought the shares for two reasons.

    The first was because I thought if any company had a shot a taking a piece of Microsoft, it was Redhat. I use MS products everyday, probably always will, but I'm one who believes that MS got where they are with unfair market practices and ended up a little too big for their (and our) own good. By buying Redhat shares, I figured I was backing up my philosophy with my wallet.

    The second reason is purely more pragmatic. Assuming Linux can take a stab at Microsoft, I believe Redhat is the most viable company to do it. In 30+ years, I'd like to think my decision to buy Redhat shares (when it was $12.00 a share) will be similar to people who bought Cisco, Oracle, MS, etc... back in the day. Sure the stock prices have wildly fluctuated, but look at the splits, and you realize just how much money there was to be made. So of course I would like to see that kind of return on this investment.

    Which is why I end up conflicted when I see news like this. On the one hand, giving away a copyright is exactly the kind of collaboration you see with the Linux development model, and why it *may* in the end surpass MS in some, if not all, applications. But as a shareholder, giving away copyrights is hardly a way to grow a business. It took time, money, and effort to secure the copyright. Who knows if this news really effected shareprice, but with the release of this news, Redhat is down almost .50/share. So as a stockholder hoping to make money on my investment, I'm not too thrilled with this kind of news.

    I suppose that's why you need to leave your emotional mind out of the market place, to avoid investing with your heart, and not your head ;-).

    just my .02 (- .50)
    jeff

  7. Re:Depends by torpor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You painted an interesting picture, but left a big gap.

    There are a lot of commercial companies actually using Linux, for whom QNX and eCOS are not worth the investment in light of recent kernel advances.

    I've considered using eCOS in some of my commercial products, but found that Linux does just as good a job in the right hands... not that its the be-all/end-all of embedded operating systems, but it sure is nice to be able to use the same system on an Intel developers box and an [insert-cpu]-type embedded box, for development and deployment...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  8. That's nice. Customers should require this. by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Big customers should require that when a company drops a software product, it goes open source. This offers the option to keep the product alive if it's needed by the customer. Such terms are occasionally seen in the embedded world, but on a single-customer basis. A standard, well-accepted contract for software escrow and open-sourcing when the product is abandoned would be a useful thing to have.

    Vendors go bankrupt, exit a field of business, or simply discontinue products all the time. Deals like this could help small vendors, providing long-term customer assurance.

    1. Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. by gregarican · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Good point. I know that some software vendors I have purchased from in the past have had clauses where their source code is held in escrow. If the company goes belly up then the customer base receives the source code out of escrow and can take off on their own with either in-house or contracted programming work.

      Most software vendors who have offered this assurance are typically smaller scale. So this idea is out there indeed.

    2. Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. by JordanH · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Uhhh... eCos already was Open Source, RedHat just held all the copyrights. Now, the copyrights are assigned to FSF.

      The difference is that users can now be assured that eCos will be released under the GPL only in the future. The copyright owner can always license software out however they want and RedHat did use a GPL-compatible license. It was already Open Source, but it wasn't already Free.

    3. Re:That's nice. Customers should require this. by EricTheGreen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I absolutely agree that doing this would benefit any company buying software.

      But the net effect of requiring this escrow for general-use software (read: not a custom job for the client) would be to devalue most software company's assets in the event of a liquidation. When liquidating, companies look to realize as much value as possible from whatever assets they possess at the time. This usually takes the form of an IP sale.

      In such a case as you describe, no external company would be motivated to bid for a insolvent company's software assets--why, when they're most likely going to go open immediately upon formal dissolution of the original owner?

      This implied de-valuation removes a significant hedge strategy from the hands of start-ups and would be entered into reluctantly, at best, by all but the largest, most well-established companies. I wouldn't ever expect to see your idea widely adopted.

      A shame, though--it really does benefit the people shelling out those big checks for these systems....

  9. still being developed? by apachetoolbox · · Score: 1, Interesting

    looks like September 19, 2003 was the last update. What to do you mean by "stopped developing in 2002"?

  10. Re:Depends by mcspock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My last company used eCos to build handheld and stereo component MP3 players, so that's my experience with it. In the handheld space it was great; small footprint (i built 40K ram/200K rom mp3+wma players with it), low overhead, minimal MMU requirements. The problem, with that space at least, is that the entire segment has shifted to faster processors with better MMUs, bigger hard drives, and generally larger requirements, which warrants using Linux. Even the eCos team was aware of this, as they started adding support for CPUs with memory protection and implementing more advanced OS features, basically scaling eCos up to...a trimmed down Linux.

    It was very good and extremely competitive at the time though; i think the issue is just that this time has passed.

    --
    -- Patience is a virtue, but impatience is an art.
  11. One thing you didn't give consideration to... by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Open Source license that Red Hat used for eCos isn't the GPL nor is it compatible with the same.

    With the FSF recieving ownership of the Copyrights on the code in question, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be relicensed under the GPL or LGPL the moment that the ownership changes hands.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  12. Re:hmm... by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Hopefully they'll retain the modified GPL that it is under currently. Otherwise the developers will likely fork the last modified-GPL version.

    The eCOS license applies the GPL terms only to the actual eCOS license, but not to any user application code linked to eCOS. This is similar to how you can run an application program on a Linux kernel without the application being subject to the GPL. However, with eCOS, normally the application is linked directly to the eCOS kernel, so the modified license takes that into account.

  13. Another embedded OS : Inferno by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Interesting



    A spin off from the plan9 project was Inferno.

    The 4th Edition is now released under a dual licence such that all source code is available under a Free licence (as defined by the FSF). The GPL it isn't but it brings the world of Limbo into the open.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  14. Serious question here about end-of-life support by grioghar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's use Microsoft for an example, since they're so fun to pick on here on Slashdot.

    Let's say MS was to release the source to Windows 98 4 years from now. Obviously no support for the software, MS is hoping everyone has upgraded. So, IMMEDIATELY people begin ripping the code apart, seeing blatant software security issues in the code.

    Who is responsible for the ensuing chaos that results from the hacks and cracks that occur because now everyone knows where the buffer overflows are. Microsoft indemnifies themself, and then the user of the original software is left to hang.

    I can think of one good example. I'm still a big fan of Quake II, and since the code release, there have been some SERIOUS cheats developed.

    Just a thought

    --
    Can you ping me now? Gooood! | Manhappenin.Net - Things to do